103

Motto

Among EU’s symbols, the motto ‘United in diversity’ (Latin: In varietate concordia) is the most abstract and maximally condensed form of verbally expressing the idea of Europe as a union. Mottos are formulated by many social actors, such as royalties or businesses. Before approaching the content of the EU motto, one should consider what a motto is used for.

What’s in a motto?

Standard lexicon definitions state that a motto (sixteenth century Italian for ‘word’) is a short phrase meant to formally encapsulate the beliefs, ideals, motivations or intentions of a social group or organisation, generally linked to some kind of heraldic design. In more traditional contexts, it is often formulated in Latin, and is typically used in heraldry (combined with a symbolic image) but also in literature (usually in the form of a quote that signals the essence or key ideas of the following main text). Germanic languages also have access to synonyms such as those that might be rephrased as ‘elected saying’ (German Wahlspruch, etc.), which emphasises that a motto is something individuals or representatives of a social group or institution actively choose to stand for their main goals. A motto thus conveys an active will, the future-oriented intentions of an agency: a word of wisdom that somebody has chosen to represent certain leading ideals or goals. A motto is a kind of verbal key symbol for a community or an individual, which differs from other verbal expressions (such as descriptions, laws, poems, novels) in that it formulates a promise or an intention, often in a striking manner. A motto is closely related to a slogan (the word derived from the Gaelic sluagh, ‘army’ + gairm, ‘shout’), which is a short and memorable (written or chanted) phrase used for propaganda or marketing to socially express an idea or unified purpose of some kind of collective.

5

Signifying Europe

104

The relation between a myth and a motto can be seen as one of archaeology versus teleology. While a myth is inherited and binds to the past, a motto is emphatically not inherited but consciously and intentionally constructed or at least selected among a stock of standard formulations in this peculiar genre, in order to convey the goals of an agency—a subject such as the ruler of a nation or an institution like the EU. A motto is not primarily a description of its bearer’s past achievements and present characteristics, but a promise for the future. However, while mainly presenting the future-oriented promise of an agency, a motto always nods to the past and the present as well—directly or indirectly. First, mottos usually also tend to describe how that agency understands itself, that is, its own self-image. Second, they always also indirectly hint at the character of the agency, in the same way as any future vision, for instance in science fiction narratives or in political utopias or dystopias, discloses key current traits and tendencies in the agency and time of its author. The intentions of any (individual or collective) subject are always mutually implicated in its background and character, due to the crucial link between agency and intentionality. What somebody declares as her will does after all say much about who she is, ‘positively’ by the style in which she formulates her intentions, which bears the mark of her identity, as well as ‘negatively’ by her wish to in the future come to grips with her past shortcomings. For instance, a strong will to unite can hint both at community formation as a long-term characteristic of a region, and at a current internal division that is felt as problematic and in need of decisive counter-measures.

Monarchs, warriors, sports teams and business firms are some of those agencies that sometimes tend to put up significant mottos. In times of intensified competition, mottos and slogans are multiplied as symbolic weapons in the struggle for recognition and proliferation, for instance when increasingly many towns today develop more or less successful slogans as aggressive marketing tools of city branding. For instance Stockholm has for some years now marketed itself as ‘the Capital of Scandinavia’, predictably provoking the rivalling Danish and Norwegian neighbours Copenhagen and Oslo. As tools for branding, mottos are today abundant, being used for publicly showing that a particular institution is a major player in a specific field of activity. Some gain widespread recognition and are often cited; others are ridiculed or quickly forgotten. Coca Cola and other firms have been successful examples, whereas the efforts by smaller cities often have scant success.

Introducing the European motto

The European motto ‘united in diversity’ is the youngest of EU’s five symbols. Though little known among ordinary people, it appears on official EU websites and is increasingly often used or at least implied in the official EU rhetoric.

105

‘United in diversity’ had actually been used by the European communists from 1964 until the rise of Eurocommunism in the late 1970s, as a way of reconciling national parties’ autonomy with the support of the Soviet Union.237 This forerunner seems not to have been directly referred to in the new EU usage. Mostly in a slightly different form—‘unity in difference’—the slogan had been used in the EU sphere at least since the mid-1960s, as a way of recognising both the plurality of independent nation states and their shared general interests.238 It had for instance since the 1990s been the official slogan of the European Bureau for the Lesser Used Languages (EBLUL). If any formulation was used to identify the EU, that was it, but it had yet no formal status for the EU system as a whole.

In 1998, French journalist Patrick La Prairie at the newspaper Ouest-France started organising a competition among school pupils, engaging 40 newspapers from EU member states. September 1999 to January 2000, some 80,000, 10–19 years old pupils sent in more than 2000 different proposals to a website (www.devise-europe.org). Fifteen national juries each selected ten mottoes. Selecting among them, a European media panel in April 2000 presented a shortlist of seven alternatives. On 4 May 2000 in Brussels, ‘unity in difference’ (proposed by Luxembourg school kids) was selected by a grand jury consisting of fifteen ‘eminent European personalities’, chaired by Jacques Delors, and aided by a lexicometric survey.239

It is a bit strange to note that such a complex selection process resulted in precisely that motto that had already been most used among European institutions. But the history of all these symbols is full of similar ‘coincidences’, related to the need for each decision to be in a certain manner ‘overdetermined’, that is, anchored at once on several different levels and by divergent mechanisms that together may ensure a kind of consensus or at least legitimacy of the chosen motto.

A second curiosity is that the selected motto was then modified into ‘united in diversity’, before it was accepted by the President of the European Parliament, Nicole Fontaine, and officially written into the European Constitution draft of 2004, with an authorised translation into all the 23 official EU languages, as well as in Latin: ‘In varietate concordia’. It is striking that publicly available EU sources do not offer any substantial explanation of the motives behind this modification. Research is needed in order to clarify this interesting change, and explain how the change could be so swiftly made without disturbing the legitimacy effect. It is not difficult to imagine a range of possible reasons. The change from ‘unity’ to ‘united’ might possibly reflect a wish to emphasise that Europe’s unity is no initially given fact, but the outcome of a painful historical process. The change from ‘difference’ to ‘diversity’ could indicate a wish to connect more strongly to the politically anchored discourse around ethnic multiculture. Finally, the whole modified construction seems able to stress a more crucial interdependence of unification and diversity: where ‘unity in difference’ could be understood to signify a unity in spite of internal differences, ‘united in diversity’

Motto

Signifying Europe

106

more clearly leans towards the interpretation that it is diversity that is the very basis of unity. This interpretation will be analysed in greater detail below.

Interpreting the European motto

Europe can be conceived in many different ways—as a geographic continent, a politico-economic actor or a sociocultural community. However, the EU is primarily a union of nation states, and its symbols will therefore necessarily express an understanding of what it means to be such a federation. It is almost self-evident that a union needs a motto that in some way expresses its character of being precisely a union, overcoming differences. But nuances are therefore of essence. European Union symbols (but not necessarily every other European symbol) will always elaborate on the theme of uniting different constituents into a strong whole. The question is how this is done.

A first observation is that it is not always quite obvious whose motto this actually is. It is put forward by the EU, which is the major economic and political actor in this continent, but it does not organise all the countries and states in this geographic area. Even so, the union is obviously strong enough to dare to propose symbols that are supposed to be valid for the whole continent. Like the other symbols, the slogan is officially presented as ‘the European motto’, rather than ‘the European Union motto’. This invites an empirical investigation of how Europeans who are not in the EU relate to this motto, which falls outside the scope of this study.

A second and related problem concerns what kind of unification is implied. From the EU perspective, the unification is primarily political and economic, but the whole involvement with symbols indicates an effort to also extend this unification to include cultural elements, in particular communicative resources that may build a common European public sphere where citizens and networks can interact and form a truly transnational polity.

A third question asks which diversities are intended. One possible interpretation relates to the plurality of EU structures, but two other, more plausible, meanings are relevant. One is to the maintenance of the relatively independent national identity and mutually exclusive political authority of each member state. The diversity would then be national and political. The other reading focuses on the more inclusive ethnical diversity of cultures that need not coincide with nation states but may either be sub-national or transnationally regional, all relating to the protection of minority rights.240 The EU as a political and economic institutional project activates the first topic, while Europe as a cultural and social community may equally well make the second one relevant.

Gerard Delanty and Chris Rumford distinguish four ways to conceive the relation between unity and diversity: (1) diversity as derivative of unity (as in ideas of a historical heritage of Greek-Roman and Christian culture); (2) unity as derivative of

107

diversity (in the cultural policy project of overcoming differences through intercultural understanding and cosmopolitanism); (3) unity as diversity (where diversity itself is not to be overcome but rather to be acknowledged in a postmodernist fashion); and (4) a self-limiting unity (a post-national position where a minimal kind of unity is formed out of an active engagement with diversity).241 Position 1 was in the mid-twentieth century common among Christian conservative circles but is today more often encountered among right-wing extremists, while EU policy-makers tend to waver between positions 2 and 3, none of which seem to have much popular support, according to Delanty and Rumford. Position 4 is what for instance Habermas proposes, when emphasising the role of communicative mechanisms rather than any underlying cultural identity.

Current thinking seems to point towards a view of unity in diversity as an accomplished fact and that therefore the only unity possible is that which is built on the basis of whatever common values can be found in the various European identities. A European identity is then not an over-riding identity but only the common expression of those values that presently exist. This might suggest that it is unlikely that European identity can rest on stronger values, in a way comparable to, for example, American values.242

Delanty and Rumford are deeply sceptical towards ‘the unity in diversity myth’ that ‘denies the possibility of a European identity since this will always be in danger of undermining national diversity’; they even argue that it is ‘close to a legitimation of xenophobic nationalism’.243 Instead, they see (political, class, gender and lifestyle) differences within nations as greater than those between nations, and argue for creating new spaces for communication that do not fix identities but rather open up for an unfinished project of social justice, cosmopolitan identity and dialogue.244

The validation of diversity may be seen as a necessary concession to the antifederalist sceptics who in many nations slowed down the integration process, but it still has important signifying consequences. When it became a leading EU policy keyword, it had been updated by a series of theoretical ideas on hybrid identity and multiple citizenship that gained impetus from the mid-1980s, not least in central Europe.245

A commentary text on the European motto, published by the European Navigator, offers an insight into how leading EU authorities think about the motto. Quoting Jack Lang, Ortega y Gasset and Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, it spends considerable effort on arguing for the need to avoid both fragmentation and implosion. There is on the one hand a perceived need for convergence, standardisation, integration and unification. On the other hand, there must also always be a necessary respect for the national sovereignity of each member state:

Motto

Signifying Europe

108

Striking a balance between unity and diversity is crucial. Too much unity would run the risk of standardisation and therefore of the destruction of national identities. Too much diversity could easily prevent intentions from converging and, in the long term, undermine the construction of a re-united Europe. […] It therefore seems crucial to seek unity in basic values and the combined presence of unity and difference.

The ‘dominant culture within the institutions in Brussels systematically underestimates diversity, viewing it as an obstacle to the further standardisation of Europe’, European Navigator continues. But a key lesson from a difficult historical experience is that ‘diversity is the genetic heritage of our continent in which unifying factors such as a single language, a common religion or a central power able to impose a uniform European model are lacking’. Differently from China or the United States, Europe cannot build its identity on any dominant uniformity, whether linguistic, religious or ethnic. ‘Europe has to be organised from its diversity and not against its diversity. A reasonable balance therefore has to be struck between the needs of diversity and the need to form a coherent whole.’246 This is the pronounced motivation behind the selected motto, in concordance with the EU Constitutional Treaty, based on principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, meant to carefully respect the sovereignty of each national member state. No wonder the motto is increasingly often used in official documents and declarations. It can also be found quoted or indirectly alluded to in other European websites, songs and other kinds of texts that thematise Europeanness today.

Comparisons and commentary

It should first be noted that there is a strong homology between the motto and the day, and also the myth. The intercourse between Europa and Zeus-as-bull is a form of unification in diversity, as the theme of hybridity expresses: human-woman travelling together with divine-animal-man and creating an offspring whose strength supposedly derived from precisely that diverse genealogy. Also, when 9 May celebrates the first formation of a European union, it does so by emphasising how enormous internal differences could not only be overcome but also preserved and respected in this new entity that was to develop into the EU.

The meaning of the motto can be further elaborated through a detour over a comparison with other mottos. Across previous periods, it is difficult to speak of any clear motto for Europe. ‘The Senate and People of Rome’ (‘Senatus Populusque Romanus’, abbreviated SPQR) pointed back at the two main bodies constituting the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire in which this motto was used. Today, nobody would be satisfied with a motto that just named the institutions and people of Europe,

109

without offering a sense of direction forward. Charlemagne’s motto was ‘renewal of the Roman Empire’ (‘renovatio imperii Romani’), which is much too backward-looking or even reactionary to be reused in modern times, where future-oriented progress is the main narrative. Later actors striving to create a transnational European power—for instance Napoleon or Nazi Germany—had several different mottos linked to them, none of which really got any general status in the larger territory.

The African Union still has no official motto, though the need for creating such pan-African symbols has been discussed in that union. Both Indonesia and South Africa use an almost similar national motto as the EU, ‘unity in diversity’. In their case, the word ‘unity’ stresses the goal of unity more strongly than the more processual ‘united’ of the EU, and—as these states are no federations of formally separate states (though South Africa was a ‘Union’ until 1961)—‘diversity’ refers not to different nationalities but to the subnational plurality of ethnic groups. In the EU case, the latter term is intended to be much broader, including not only cultural and ethnic but also and prominently political and national diversity, since the Union is bound to respect the relative autonomy of each member state.

Since 1956, the official US motto is ‘In God We Trust’, derived from the lyrics of the American national anthem: ‘The Star Spangled Banner’, written in 1814. However, since before that, and still in widespread use today, has been the more secular ‘e pluribus unum’ (‘out of many, one’, ‘one for many’ or ‘one from many [parts]’). It is said to derive from a Roman poem called ‘Moretum’, sometimes attributed to Virgil, and where it describes how different colours are blended into one. It was included on the 1776 Seal of the United States, adopted by an Act of Congress in 1782 and used on US coins since 1786. As it was never codified by law, the Congress in 1956 decided to instead officially adopt ‘In God We Trust’, but it has still remained in use until recent times, for instance on dollar coins.247 Like the motto of most federations, the US one states that many different merge into one single, united whole. It was actually used by European politicians in the late 1950s for stressing the necessary balance between individual states and a common identity. In the 1993 De Clercq report, it was modified into ‘In uno plures’ in order to strike a distance from the US melting-pot approach.248 The US motto conforms to the melting-pot image of the US federation, where plurality disappears for the benefit of unity. It refers to the welding of a single federal state from a group of individual political units—originally colonies and now states. The EU motto instead makes a key point that it is precisely diversity that is the main resource for the ongoing process of unifying European nations, more in line with a multicultural ‘salad-bowl’ interpretation of diversity, though transposed from ethnic to national relations.249 It is more explicitly diversity-friendly, stressing that it is the internal plurality of the union that is its defining characteristic. This also corresponds to the extraordinarily many linguistic and cultural differences within Europe, which have been seen as an obstacle to unification, but which the motto explains being rather

Motto

Signifying Europe

110

a positive source of strength. ‘Whereas the US motto aims at [a] unity created from a diversity of states, the EU puts any further unity under the condition of a maintained diversity amongst the states’, as Toggenburg formulates it.250 An interpretation would seem to indicate that the motto expresses a kind of balance between the polarities represented by the two myths mentioned before, making the combination of diversity and unity a key resource of Europe.

Few criticisms of the motto are found on the Internet. Most seem rather happy about it. For instance, someone at the Leicester Intercultural Communication and Leadership School (ICLS) found this motto helpful:

For a start, the EU’s motto is ‘United in Diversity’, a motto I can fully relate to working for ICLS in Leicester. It helped me start to overcome a few of my prejudices. Like many Brits, I had not considered myself a European, mainly because of media influences and our ‘island mentality’. However, after speaking with my new friends from Rotterdam, Berlin and Rome, I realised that Europe is a strong coalition that can exert pressure (for better of worse) when engaged in international negotiations. It seems to me that this is the best reason to remain and become more engaged in the EU, because as a democratic institution we can encourage it to use its power in a globally responsible way.251

Some websites question if there is any real unity, if it is at all possible, or if it is a welcome vision for the future. Some have made fun of the abstract and slightly paradoxical character of the motto, and of the way it was created:

That, of course, means no more than ‘diversity through unity’ would mean. Or ‘sameness through difference’, ‘white through black’ or ‘one through zero’. And it will have exactly as much effect as any of those slogans would on our ‘identification of or with’ and ‘emotional attachment to’ Europe. […] This slogan is the bland expression of an abstract contradiction. It was arrived at through a quasi-democratic process; and then unilaterally altered by people who decided they knew better in order to get a result they preferred. It is, as the Committee on Constitutional Affairs so elegantly puts it, ‘the perfect definition of the essence of the European project’.252

This is witty, but at least the accusation of being contradictory is basically flawed: ‘United in diversity’ is not synonymous with ‘white through black’ or any other paradox, as the analysis here should already have made evident. Compared to the fate

111

of the flag and the anthem, to be discussed in following chapters, the motto has met strikingly little strong substantial opposition or fewer alternative proposals, except that some still after so many years refer to the EU motto in its initial form, ‘unity in difference’, and others passingly mention various other slogans that circulate in Europe, including shifting combinations of keywords like ‘freedom’, ‘justice’ and ‘solidarity’—or some other variation on the French Revolution’s ‘liberté, égalité, fraternité’—but without really confronting the official one.

Since back in 1958, the Council of the European Union has a presidency that rotates among member states every six months. This ‘EU Presidency’ often comes with a particular motto and logo that aim to reflect the particularly important current tasks, but also shed some new light on how Europe is identified. For instance, in spring 2006, Austria used ‘Partnership for a social future’, and in spring 2007, Germany used three different slogans: ‘Europe—succeeding together’, ‘Living Europe safely’ and ‘Europe—a partner for sustainable global development’. Portugal in autumn 2007 had ‘A stronger Union for a better world’, Slovenia in spring 2008 talked of ‘Si.nergy for Europe’, France in autumn 2008 promoted the considerably more controversial and Captain Euro-like ‘a more protective Europe’, and the Czech presidency in spring 2009 opened up again with ‘A Europe without barriers’, which Sweden in autumn 2009 connected to by its ‘Openness, effectiveness and dialogue’. Sweden also made use of a ‘Me-We’ formula striving to balance and link an individualised perspective to a collective belonging and institutional underpinning in formulations like ‘Me-We: Your contribution times half a billion—what a force!’ All these slogans are clearly conjunctural and bound to particular tasks deriving from the situation of that specific period. Together, they indicate that in these last years, the widening and strengthening of the Union has been a primary goal, where different countries and/or periods put emphasis either on openness or on safety.

Many nations have mottos that promote the individual country in question, highlighting its strengths or formulating a task to make it stronger in relation to others. A typical example is the current Swedish king Carl XVI Gustaf with his ‘For Sweden—With the times’ (‘För Sverige—i tiden’). Some nations include a certain measure of transnational orientation, such as Turkey who since Atatürk’s time uses ‘Peace at home, peace in the world’ (‘Yurtta sulh, cihanda sulh’). In comparison, the European motto is turned more inwards. It acknowledges plurality within itself, but does not in any way thematise its relations to the rest of the world.

One may find several variations on the European motto in use by different associations and companies. To take just one single example of the latter, the WSP Group, established in the United Kingdom in the 1970s, is today ‘a global business providing management and consultancy services to the built and natural environment’ with 9000 employees worldwide.253 Its presentation material uses a plethora of visionary formulations, including the typical ‘core values’ of ‘trust’, ‘support and sharing’, ‘pride

Motto

Signifying Europe

112

and passion’, ‘sustainability’ and ‘innovation’. Their main slogan leans heavily on EU rhetoric:

We don’t suppress individuality or the different needs of our clients and our teams. Though we are united by our shared pride, passion and desire to collaborate, we have very different areas of expertise, specialism and innovation. Put it all together and we can be the very best to work with and work for. We call it: ‘United by our difference’.254

This repeated slogan carries a similar message as that of the EU, only more openly and simply stated: ‘Ultimately being United by our difference means our people flourish in an environment that allows them to produce and be their very best.’ This is presumably also the intention behind the EU, and the ideological transfer shows how compatible such a motto is not only with interstate collaboration but also with corporate marketing.

Conclusions

The motto is a highly abstract and compressed verbal symbol of Europe. It is framed by a genre of mottos that express the intended goals and responsibilities of a social actor. This actor is in this case a union of sovereign nation states, and even though the EU claims to represent the whole of Europe, it is therefore not surprising that its motto focuses on the form and process of unification itself, rather than on any other aspect of European identity. Each term in the motto is crucial. ‘United’ indicates an accomplishment resulting from a process rather than given by definition: a decisive step has been taken, namely, the formation of the EU that has united Europe’s nations into something stronger than a simple gathering, without eradicating their mutual differences by fusing them into one single state. ‘Diversity’ signals a cultural and political plurality rather than an inner contradiction or polar otherness. And the word ‘in’ seems to combine aspects of a ‘through’ and ‘by’, making diversity a sustainable and respected feature of the accomplished unification, rather than just an initial condition or starting point. Here, the four aspects analysed in the previous symbols seem only partially valid.

1. The motto is rather neutral in relation to the first aspect, involving the polarity of dislocation and fixity. The processual term ‘united’ instead of ‘unity’ does contribute a certain sense of dislocation, namely from a state of inner division and fragmentation to another situation where diversity remains but does not any longer block and prevent unification, since unity has been redefined so that

113

it does not demand standardised uniformity. This is apparently possible in the present, late modern time where individualisation and flexible specialisation have enabled new and more open ways of connecting, also alluded to in terms like glocalisation (combining globalisation and localisation).255

2. As for desire, it is possible to conceive the unification of diverse agencies as something that creates joy and satisfaction, whether allusions are made specifically to (hetero)sexual intercourse or just to intersubjective or intercultural communication in general. The motto talks of a desire for otherness or for internal difference, with affinities to the Zeus–Europa encounter. The talk of unification at the same time has a loose affinity with the complementary value of rational control. The motto can therefore be said to—equally much as the day—balance these two poles that Europa and Captain Euro represented.

3. The motto has a very faint connection to a theme found both in the Europa myth and in Europe Day: that of elevation. The processual character of the term ‘united’ may indicate some kind of civilising historical accomplishment (or task ahead). This would have been more evident had the formulation been more like that of the United States, which depicts plurality as developing into unity. In the EU case, diversity is never abandoned, so that unity and difference remain equally valid for Europe today. It is therefore hard to point at a clear elevation to some kind of higher level, in the way that princess Europa was temporarily lifted up by the god Zeus. Still, one may possibly stretch the interpretation a little bit and consider the depiction of inner diversity, as the main and identifying asset of this union, to be a kind of uplifting self-image: Europe is supposedly to some extent unique (a) in containing such a vast number of ethnicities, religions, languages, cultural communities and political nation states, and (b) in regarding this inner division as a positive resource, which carries over to the fourth aspect below. Still, these embryonic meanings seem rather weak, and on the whole, the motto appears to be rather neutral and does not to contribute much along this dimension of elevation.

4. The motto thus only faintly takes up the first three themes found in the previous symbols. However, the fourth aspect of hybridity may well be seen as almost synonymous to the motto. In a way, hybridity is another term for precisely the fusion of unity and diversity: differences that persist even though they are unified into one new kind of body. Harmonious unity and diversity compete, with shifting balance, in all the different symbolic domains. From this perspective, the complex diversity of Europe need not defeat the idea of a European community. To unify a social body that lacks any generally shared or unitary life form—

Motto

Signifying Europe

114

language, religion, ethnicity or political rule—is a challenge that demands an intense building of bridges in all directions, but it is no final contradiction of the European project as such. The EU motto ‘united in diversity’ suggests that the irreducible plurality may be the strength of this project. Instead of substituting diversity with unity, it is the diversity itself that forms the basis of Europe: in Étienne Balibar’s words, Europe’s dense history of superimposed differences has lent it a particular capacity to act ‘as the interpreter of the world, translating languages and cultures in all directions’.256